Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of several matters in relation to his daughter’s care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the faults accepted have not caused any significant injustice and an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of several matters in relation to his daughter’s care and support. He complains:
• The Council said it would deduct his daughter’s assessed contributions from her monthly direct payments.
• The Council decided to cease to maintain his daughter’s EHC plan without following proper process.
• The Council’s children social services continued to pay her direct payment each month despite his daughter turning 18 in August 2023. He says this caused delays with payments, which resulted in his daughter’s carers going unpaid for hours completed.
• The Council delayed in providing information to the Integrated Care Board (ICB) which resulted in the continuing healthcare checklist (CHC) referral being closed without any decision made on his daughter’s eligibility for funding.
• The Council is discriminating against his daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s daughter, Ms Z, receives care and support through direct payments.
6. The Council appropriately completed a financial assessment for Ms Z to determine how much she needed to contribute towards the cost of her care and support. The Council wrote to Mr X to confirm the amounts Ms Z needed to contribute. I note Mr X maintains Ms Z cannot afford to pay her assessed contribution.
7. I have reviewed the financial assessments completed and do not consider there is any evidence there was fault in how they were completed. I can also see the Council confirmed further allowances could be agreed for the costs involved with Ms Z special diet. The Council asked Mr X to provide evidence of the expenditure incurred. It is open to Mr X to provide this.
8. The Council also confirmed in its complaint response that the Council will pay its contribution in full. There is no suggestion the Council will deduct Ms Z’s contribution from her direct payments. As Ms Z has been assessed as needing to contribute, it is Mr X’s responsibility as her representative to ensure this is paid into her direct payment account.
9. Therefore, an investigation on this complaint point is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.
10. Regarding Ms Z’s EHC plan, the Council has provided evidence it issued its cease to maintain notice in April 2024. This notice contained the Council’s rationale for its decision. The Council does have to consult with Mr Z before it can cease to maintain the EHC plan. The evidence suggests the Council is aware of this requirement as it requested Mr Z provide his views on the proposal by May 2024. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault as the Council has followed the correct procedure to cease to maintain the plan.
11. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, he has the right to appeal once the Council issues its formal decision to cease to maintain. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal.
12. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted there had been a delay in transferring responsibility for paying Ms Z’s direct payments from children services to adult services. The Council explained this was because it had not received a signed client contribution form from Mr X. However, the Council had now agreed to move forward with the transition without the form being signed.
13. An investigation is not justified as the delay has not caused any significant injustice. I note Mr X detailed that the failure to transition the direct payments resulted in Ms Z’s carers not being paid. However, there is no evidence the delay meant Ms Z failed to receive the care and support she required. An investigation would not lead to any further outcomes as the Council has now agreed to transition the direct payments to adult social care.
14. Finally, Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide the ICB with information to allow it to decide whether Ms Z was eligible for CHC funding. The ICB asked the Council provide information in March 2024. It then closed the referral in April 2024. The Council confirmed a new CHC checklist had been submitted to the ICB at the end of May 2024.
15. There does appear to be some fault here regarding delay in providing the ICB with relevant information. However, I am satisfied the Council has appropriately remedied the frustration caused by this as it has apologised. I do not consider any further remedy is necessary given the length of the delay is around one to two months.
16. Further, we do not know whether the ICB will decide Ms Z is eligible for CHC funding. If she is not eligible, then I am satisfied the delay will not have caused any significant injustice to Ms Z. If the decision is she is eligible, Mr X can ask the ICB to consider backdating the funding.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the faults accepted have not caused any significant injustice and an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman